- (1.) Short question involved in this Tribunal application is whether the Central Government was right in refusing to extend special incentive to the Ministerial Staff of Central Investigation of Bureau (hereinafter referred to as CBI) whereas identical benefit was extended to the staff working in Research and Analytical Wing (hereinafter referred to as RAW) and Intelligence Bureau (hereinafter referred to as I.B.)
(2.) The petitioners were working as Ministerial Staff working in CBI at Kolkata. CBI had two groups of staff, one being the executive staff i.e. the investigating people working as Constable up to the post of Director and the other group called as Ministerial Staff who worked in the office as clerical cadre and Class-IV employees. All of them were Government servants within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. THE Central Government declared incentive allowance vide circular dated September 11, 2006 to the executive staff working in CBI at the rate of twenty-five per cent of Basic Pay+Dearness Allowance up to the rank of Senior Superintendent of Police and at the rate of fifteen per cent of the Basic Pay+Dearness Allowance for the officers above the rank of Senior Superintendent of Police. This incentive allowance was subject to conditions imposed by the said circular. Similar benefit was extended by the Central Government, RAW and Investigation Bureau. However, when the Central Government extended the said benefit to the other two agencies they termed it as special security allowance at the rate of fifteen per cent of the Basic Pay and Dearness Allowance pay to all employees irrespective of their status meaning thereby, the Ministerial Staff working in those two agencies were also extended such benefit as would appear from the circular dated June 19, 2006 in case of RAW and June 16, 2006 in case of intelligence Bureau (I.B.). THE Joint Director (Administration), CBI, New Delhi appreciated the anomaly and vide circular dated October 17, 2006 observed that the matter had been considered by the head office. THE said circular clearly stated, "it has been the endeavour of the CBI to ensure equity among all his staff members as a well knit close family". By the said circular the Joint Director informed that the matter had already been sent to the Pay Commission for their consideration. THE applicants before us also referred to a minutes of the meeting held by the Joint Director on November 1, 2006 when the anomalies were discussed in detail and the hierarchy of CBI appreciated the anomaly and found justification in the claim and contention of the applicants. The Pay Commission considered the issue and observed that the pay of the staff of CBI was duly considered and it did not require any further incentive allowance. The under Secretary vide clarification dated October 21, 2008 appearing at page 31 of the supplementary affidavit informed that the proposal for grant of special incentive allowance for the Ministerial Staff in CBI had been examined by the Department. Since the 6th Pay Commission had recommended for maintaining the status quo in this regard such proposal could not be agreed to. We may also refer to page 34 of the supplementary affidavit whereby the under Secretary to the Department of Expenditure informed that the proposal had been found not feasible to agree with the proposal for grant of special incentive allowance to ministerial cadre of CBI. The under Secretary, however, observed that performance related incentive scheme would be pronounced very soon. The applicants contended before us that no such scheme was ever formulated although the said clarification and/or circular was issued two years ago on March 13, 2009. We also find that the hierarchy of CBI recommended such benefit as was recorded by the Department of Expenditure appearing at page 28- 30 of the supplementary affidavit. From the facts, as referred to above, it appears to us that although the hierarchy of CBI felt the need of extension of identical benefit to the Ministerial Staff, the Central Government refused it, on the ground, that such proposal was not acceded to by the Pay Commission. While we look to the record pertaining to Pay Commission we find that the Pay Commission misconstrued the claim and the recommendation. The Pay Commission in its 6th Pay Commission Report observed as follows:- "CBI Personnel have demanded additional allowances and better pay package for the nature of duties being performed by them. Ranks of ASI, Head Constable and Constable have been recommended higher pay scales. CBI Personnel are already in receipt of a special allowance of 25% (up to and including the post of Superintendent) and 15% (DIG and above). The amount of this allowance will automatically go up once the recommended pay scales are implemented and will be sufficient to attract the best talent to this agency. Any additional allowance is therefore not necessary. The commission recommends maintenance of status quo in this regard."
(3.) We find from the above extract that the claim was refused on the ground that the allowance would automatically go once the recommended pay would be implemented. No additional allowance was thus necessary. The Pay Commission failed to appreciate that the recommendation was not for increase of the rate of allowance for the executive Staff. It was for bringing equity by extending the identical benefit to the Ministerial Staff. If the earlier incentives would be taken care of at the time of revision of pay the pay of the executive would be enhanced whereas the Ministerial Staff would get automatically a reduced pay without the benefit of the incentive already granted to the executive staff earlier. The applicants approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal also misconstrued. They observed that once the matter was referred to Pay Commission as per the order of the Principal Bench in an identical situation no further order need be passed in the application filed by the Kolkata Staff. Pertinent to note, the 6th Pay Commission by that time already rejected the claim of the applicants. Hence, the Tribunal should have gone into the merits of the matter to find out whether such rejection was justified or not.;